Assessing support needs in children with intellectual disability and motor impairments: measurement invariance and group differences.
The SIS-C is fair for kids with ID alone or ID plus motor limits, and higher scores in the second group flag real extra needs you should fund.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team checked if the Supports Intensity Scale-Children’s Version (SIS-C) works the same way for two groups: kids with intellectual disability (ID) only, and kids with ID plus motor impairments.
They wanted to know if scores can be fairly compared across these groups, and if extra motor issues push support needs higher.
What they found
The scale measures the same construct in both groups—scores are apples-to-apples.
Children with ID plus motor impairments earned higher support-need ratings, especially in Home Living and Community Living sections.
How this fits with other research
Chou et al. (2013) and Johnson et al. (2009) already showed the adult SIS is reliable for resource planning; Williams et al. (2019) now gives the child version the same green light.
Arnkelsson et al. (2014) stretched the scale to adults with psychiatric disabilities and also found strong validity—evidence the tool travels across diagnoses.
Rispoli et al. (2011) saw weak links between Dutch SIS scores and real-life skills in adults with physical disabilities. Williams et al. (2019) tighten that gap by proving the children’s scale detects the extra burden motor limits add, keeping scores meaningful.
Why it matters
You can trust SIS-C numbers whether the child uses a walker or not. When motor issues are present, bump up home and community goals—think adapted utensils, wheelchair-friendly playgrounds, or longer transition times. Use the scale to justify extra hours or equipment without re-testing for bias.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After you score the SIS-C, scan the Home and Community pages first when the child has motor impairments—add goals there before classroom goals.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: This study assessed the equivalence of the measurement of support needs between children with intellectual disability (ID) and children with intellectual and motor disabilities (IMD) and compared both groups in the different domains of support. METHOD: The Supports Intensity Scale-Children's Version was used to assess the support needs of 713 children with ID and 286 children with IMD, mainly associated with cerebral palsy. RESULTS: The results supported measurement invariance between the group of ID and IMD, which allowed to conduct comparison between them. Children with IMD scored higher on support needs than did children without IMD, suggesting that children with IMD needed more support than their peers without motor impairments. Furthermore, the ID levels interacted with motor impairments: at the highest levels of ID, groups tended to be similar in support needs, with high scores and low variability. The greatest differences were found in the domains of Home and Community activities. CONCLUSIONS: This study points to the across-condition of the construct of support needs in populations with intellectual and developmental disabilities. However, additional mobility impairments should be considered during the evaluation and planning of systems of support. In this regard, the Supports Intensity Scale-Children's Version might have limitations when discriminating between samples with high support needs.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2019 · doi:10.1111/jir.12683